New Millennium,New Public Management and the New Zealand Model

Recently the much‐discussed ‘New Zealand model’ of new public management (NPM) has become significantly revised. It now lacks the theoretical coherence and the market‐led focus that it relied on between 1987 and 1996. Labour‐led governments since 1999 have undertaken gradual and pragmatic – yet significant – changes in public management structures and principles, refining and sometimes reversing the model implemented in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This article does a ‘stock‐take’ of public management developments in New Zealand from 1999 to 2008, and argues that New Zealand can no longer be viewed as a leading exponent of market‐led NPM. Some NPM principles have been refined, but others have been quietly abandoned. The new National‐led government appears unwilling to undertake radical reforms, and, while it may seek a greater role for the private sector, looks set to continue with the ‘gradual and pragmatic’ approach adopted since 1999.     

新公共管理运动中的混合制模式

从20世纪80年代起西方各发达国家实行了"新公共管理运动"的行政改革策略."新公共管理运动"的主旨是运用市场积极有效的经济方法及手段来解决传统的政府公共部门激励欠缺的弊病,进而提高公共部门的行政效率及效果.尤为重要的是,新公共管理运动中实施的各项改革措施,例如建立政府遥控职能,实行地方分权自治,鼓励公共产品竞争、国有资产私有化以及绩效评估管理等,已经使传统单一的政府计划管理模式转化为一种新的混合制管理模式.     

Justice,Efficiency, and the New Public Management

In this article I aim to explore the link between two normative values, namely justice and efficiency, and the New Public Management approach. In pursuing this task I offer several critical arguments against some of the recent justice‐based objections levied against New Public Management by David Arellano‐Gault. I claim that Arellano‐Gault's account of the relation between justice and the New Public Management is seriously undermined by two conceptual flaws: (1) a conflation of right‐libertarianism, utilitarianism, and desert theories of justice and (2) a conflation of the technical/productive sense of efficiency with the social/distributive sense. Furthermore, I maintain that even when the different theories of justice and the different senses of efficiency are properly delineated, the case for necessarily linking NPM to a particular theory of justice is markedly unconvincing.     

新公共管理：反思、批判与超越——兼评新公共服务理论

通过采用企业化政府的理念,新公共管理提高了效率,但也导致了公共性、公平、责任、价值诉求等公共管理价值的缺失.通过对新公共管理的反思和批判以及对新公共服务的理论基础、原则和内容的介绍,说明新公共服务在理论基础、价值选择、政府责任、公民精神方面不仅可以弥补和纠正新公共管理的偏颇,并可以替代新公共管理成为公共管理的发展趋势.     

Questioning the New Public Management

Books reviewed in this article: Ali Farazmand (ed.), Privatization or Public Enterprise Reform? International Case Studies with Implications for Public Management B. Guy Peters, The Future of Governing     

The New Enclosures: London,New York City,Philadelphia, and the Transformation of Public Space

ABSTRACT

In recent years, social movements have taken to the streets to protest various forms of economic and racial injustice. However, these attempts to exploit the political opportunities public spaces afford have been compromised by the increasingly private nature of “public” spaces. What has changed is the rise of privately owned public spaces (POPS), areas that appear to be public, but in fact are owned by corporations that prohibit a range of activities, including political protest. This article argues such restrictions of public space are not limited to POPS. Rather, they are just one expression of a far more pervasive phenomenon, novel variations on centuries-old practices by which common or public land has been enclosed. I suggest that four forms of enclosure -for profit, of behavior, of community, and of the public realm- degrade the status of public institutions and insulate private interests from counter-mobilization by groups pursuing egalitarian ends.     

公共政策网络管理：机制、模式与绩效测度

政策网络管理应重点研究七个基本问题和应注意十个重大问题,政策网络管理存在工具、互动和制度三种观点和个人权威控制、专制控制、结果控制、文化或集团控制、声誉控制五种控制机制,具体管理模式可以从行动者、认知和制度三个维度和政策管理、过程管理和网络宪政三个层面进行架构,并可根据不同的网络环境选择不同的网络管理行为.网络行动者的数量、管理能力与技巧、网络的开放性、利益冲突、网络管理成本是影响政策网络管理有效性的重要因素,网络管理的绩效也可根据不同的网络结构选择不同的评价指标进行定量到定性的评价.     

Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management

A new public administration movement is emerging to move beyond traditional public administration and New Public Management. The new movement is a response to the challenges of a networked, multisector, no‐one‐wholly‐in‐charge world and to the shortcomings of previous public administration approaches. In the new approach, values beyond efficiency and effectiveness—and especially democratic values—are prominent. Government has a special role to play as a guarantor of public values, but citizens as well as businesses and nonprofit organizations are also important as active public problem solvers. The article highlights value‐related issues in the new approach and presents an agenda for research and action to be pursued if the new approach is to fulfill its promise.     

Public Incentives,Market Motivations,and Contaminated Properties: New Public Management and Brownfield Liability Reform

Brownfields pose challenges to both communities and policy makers. Public funds are insufficient to remediate these contaminated sites, but, given the uncertainty of contamination and the complexity of liability, private interests are reluctant to become involved for fear of future litigation. From a New Public Management perspective, market incentives can be used to encourage private sector remediation of sites. However, this change implies a shift in administrative function from regulation to “getting the incentives right.” In this research, the authors investigate whether state and federal reforms aimed at increasing private sector involvement have actually done so, and they consider the implications for other goals of brownfield remediation, such as providing economic development assistance in communities where such change is needed. Findings show that developers respond to insurance and tax incentives, but the authors question whether public incentives are making unattractive redevelopment opportunities worth investing in or simply making profitable redevelopment opportunities more profitable.     

New Public Management and Management Education: Foundations of Successful Management Reform

International experience shows that the main objective of New Public Management (NPM) reform has predominantly been to overcome the current crisis in funding and public service delivery. The achieving this objective has involved adopting a philosophy of 'more for less' or, in other words, by enhancing 'value for money' in public service delivery. To this end,NPM reforms have generally aimed at replacing the inherited or traditional bureaucratic structure of management with a market – or at least a competition-based – contract arrangement. As is the case in any contested market setting, the main concern of state and public administration is no longer merely to ensure a legally correct application of laws, but also to use scarce resources as 'efficiently' as possible in the pursuit of the desired ends of increased productivity and 'more for less'.     

Program Strategy and Coalition Building as Facets of New Public Management

This paper explores two issues: first, the strategic and coalition-building tasks that may be routinely associated with New Public Management (NPM); and second, the implications of acknowledging these tasks for the conception of public management. NPM focuses on performance. It invites managers to accept responsibility for whole programs or systems (Kettle, 1997; Dunleavy, 1994; Ridley, 1996; Hood, 1995). This directs attention to basic program frameworks (that is, program strategy), as well as to operations. It involves the purposes of programs. It involves routine attention to such factors as the effectiveness of outcomes, the identification of alternative program configurations, the implications of emerging issues and needs, and the mobilisation of authority for change. In practice, this authority derives both from program stakeholders, as well as from ministers and the broader political system.     

Capacity,Leadership, and Organizational Performance: Testing the Black Box Model of Public Management

According to recent “black box” models of public management, managerial capacity is a critical component for achieving service delivery improvement. In particular, black box models assume that the impact of management systems is maximized through integration with effective leadership. This assumption is tested by analyzing the effects of managerial capacity and organizational leadership on the performance of English local governments, while controlling for a range of other variables, including organizational size, resources, external constraints, and past performance. Empirical results show that capacity possesses a positive statistical association with local government performance and that leadership can enhance the impact of effective management systems.     

从新公共管理到新公共服务——西方公共行政理论的最新发展

自20世纪80年代以来,新公共管理理论在西方国家“突破官僚制”的行政改革中,逐渐成为主导性的行政范式。但新公共管理理论对经济、效率、效能的片面追求,使得民主、公民权和公共利益等公共行政应有的价值观念丧失殆尽。在此背景下,一种新的公共行政理论———新公共服务理论应运而生了。它在肯定新公共管理理论固有价值的基础上,对其理论与实践中的缺陷进行了批判,努力构建一种以公民权利和公共利益为指向、顺应现代公民社会发展要求的新的公共行政范式。     

Defining and Defending the New Public Management

Book reviewed:
Lawrence R. Jones and Fred Thompson, Public Management: Institutional Renewal for the Twenty-First Century     

西方新城市管理：理论轮廓与反思

近十几年来,公共服务途径经历了重大转型。一个多世纪建立起来的公共服务精神受到了新公共管理理论的挑战。新公共管理理论主要依赖私部门管理实践,强调将竞争引入公共服务领域的重要性。实践中,新公共管理力求将市民(公民)定义为产品的消费者或公共服务提供者的顾客。研究显示,尽管新公共管理运动促进了某些城市服务的改进,但也存在严重局限。主要表现在它不能释放改进公共服务的关键动力———市民和社区能量。作为一个整体,城市领导者与管理者在重塑公共服务改革议程中有着关键作用。作为改进城市治理质量,必须处理3大关键挑战。并将这一途径称为“新城市管理”,以寻求管理变革与地方政治复兴的融合。     

Governing Interlocal Cooperation: City Council Interests and the Implications for Public Management

Local government managers are described as key participants in the development of interlocal cooperation, but the interests of city councils in this process have gone largely unstudied. Here, the author addresses the theoretical importance of council-manager relations in interlocal public service cooperation. Three propositions identify areas of shared council-manager responsibility. Evidence from in-depth interviews with city council members is used to assess each proposition. While interlocal partnership has been described as a managerial activity, council members take an interest in network development and agreement assessment. Managers, on the other hand, give greater attention to public participation and education. The evidence refines assumptions about council-manager roles in the formation of cooperative agreements, with important implications for local government management.